Skip to content

Republican · U.S. House, Wyoming at large

Serving since Jan 3, 2023119th Congress (2025–27)next election Nov 3, 2026

Bioguide H001096FEC H2WY00166, S6WY00209

Portrait of Harriet Hageman, rendered as a two-tone print
Official portrait
1.9×
the House Republican rate of policy criticism

29% of 923 statements criticize a policy (271 statements); the average for House Republicans is 15%. Ranks 8th of 221, where 1st is the highest rate.

An AI model reads each of Hageman’s posts on X, newsletters, press releases and Congressional Record speeches and marks whether it criticizes a specific policy, law or ruling. The rate is the share of statements marked; it is compared with the average among House Republicans and ranked against the same group.

At a glance

6 measures against House Republicans. 8.0% of Hageman’s itemized money in the 2026 cycle came from Wyoming, in the bottom 5% of House Republicans. The policy areas Hageman talks about and legislates on agree at 0.75 on a 0–1 scale, in the top 5% of House Republicans.

The measures on which Hageman sits furthest from the middle of House Republicans, each against the same group, with the CSIP score when there is one. Every number is explained in its own section below.

Policy criticism

29%

House Republicans average 15% · ranks 8th of 221

From Wyoming, 2026

8.0%

Of itemized individual dollars · ranks 210th of 216 House Republicans

Talk-to-bills agreement

0.75

House Republicans average 0.64 · ranks 5th of 221

Extreme labels

9.2%

House Republicans average 3.0% · ranks 9th of 221

CSIP ideology

+1.38

More conservative than 91% of House Republicans · ± 0.02

Small donations, 2026

42%

House Republicans’ median 9.4% · ranks 21st of 220

Peer group: House Republicans. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; the thick bar is Hageman, the thin grey bar the peer average. The headline is the measure on which Hageman is most unusual among peers (Methods, §08).

Back to topNext: What politicians say

What Hageman says

Hageman criticizes policies more than 96% of House Republicans. Policy criticism in 29% of 923 statements, against 15% for the average House Republican; 8th of 221.

An AI model reads each of Hageman’s 923 statements in the 119th Congress (708 posts on X, 123 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 26 press releases) and marks the kinds of statement it contains: a personal attack, criticism of a policy, discussion of policy, bipartisanship, credit claiming, and extreme labels. A statement can carry several. Every rate is compared with the average for House Republicans and ranked among them.

Kinds of statement

Share of statements carrying each label, the 119th Congress

0%80%
Hageman
Peers
Rank
Policy discussion675 statements
73%
68%
73rd of 221
Credit claiming440 statements
48%
37%
39th of 221
Policy criticism271 statements
29%
15%
8th of 221
Bipartisanship58 statements
6%
9%
133rd of 221
Personal attacks13 statements
1%
2%
98th of 221
Show the data
Hageman's share of statements in each category against the House Republicans average.
RowHagemanPeers
Policy discussion73%68%
Credit claiming48%37%
Policy criticism29%15%
Bipartisanship6%9%
Personal attacks1%2%
923

statements classified

708 posts on X, 123 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 26 press releases.

posts on X: 708 (76.7%)posts on X 708newsletters: 123 (13.3%)Congressional Record speeches: 66 (7.2%)press releases: 26 (2.8%)
Show the data
Hageman's statements by source
PartValue
posts on X708
newsletters123
Congressional Record speeches66
press releases26
How to read the bars

The thick bar is Hageman; the thin grey bar is the average House Republicans. A longer thick bar means Hageman does this more than peers. Rank 1 is the highest rate in the group.

Extreme labels

Hageman used extreme labels in 9.2% of statements, 3.0 times the peer average. 85 statements, most often aimed at left; peers 3.0%.

  1. “radical”40
  2. “woke”17
  3. “extreme”10
  4. “communist”7
  5. “far left”7

Who gets the labels

Targets named alongside an extreme label, by number of statements

  1. left8
  2. Democrats7
  3. the left4
  4. climate policies2
  5. ideological agendas2
What an extreme label is

Calls a politician, a party or a policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who or what the label was aimed at. The lists show the five most used labels and targets; the toggle shows the rest.

Month by month

Share of statements per month, the 119th Congress

Statements2025-01: 582025-02: 422025-03: 392025-04: 282025-05: 202025-06: 342025-07: 302025-08: 312025-09: 412025-10: 252025-11: 382025-12: 372026-01: 492026-02: 472026-03: 822026-04: 272026-05: 502026-06: 742026-07: 432026-08: 422026-09: 552026-10: 31peak 82 · Mar ’26Personal attackspeak 11.6% · Jul ’26 · latest 0.0%Personal attacks, 2025-01: 3.5% of 58Personal attacks, 2025-02: 0.0% of 42Personal attacks, 2025-03: 0.0% of 39Personal attacks, 2025-04: 3.6% of 28Personal attacks, 2025-05: 0.0% of 20Personal attacks, 2025-06: 0.0% of 34Personal attacks, 2025-07: 3.3% of 30Personal attacks, 2025-08: 0.0% of 31Personal attacks, 2025-09: 0.0% of 41Personal attacks, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Personal attacks, 2025-11: 2.6% of 38Personal attacks, 2025-12: 0.0% of 37Personal attacks, 2026-01: 0.0% of 49Personal attacks, 2026-02: 0.0% of 47Personal attacks, 2026-03: 1.2% of 82Personal attacks, 2026-04: 0.0% of 27Personal attacks, 2026-05: 0.0% of 50Personal attacks, 2026-06: 0.0% of 74Personal attacks, 2026-07: 11.6% of 43Personal attacks, 2026-08: 2.4% of 42Personal attacks, 2026-09: 0.0% of 55Personal attacks, 2026-10: 0.0% of 31Policy criticismpeak 50.0% · Apr ’25 · latest 22.6%Policy criticism, 2025-01: 39.7% of 58Policy criticism, 2025-02: 35.7% of 42Policy criticism, 2025-03: 43.6% of 39Policy criticism, 2025-04: 50.0% of 28Policy criticism, 2025-05: 50.0% of 20Policy criticism, 2025-06: 38.2% of 34Policy criticism, 2025-07: 16.7% of 30Policy criticism, 2025-08: 41.9% of 31Policy criticism, 2025-09: 34.2% of 41Policy criticism, 2025-10: 44.0% of 25Policy criticism, 2025-11: 39.5% of 38Policy criticism, 2025-12: 24.3% of 37Policy criticism, 2026-01: 12.2% of 49Policy criticism, 2026-02: 31.9% of 47Policy criticism, 2026-03: 24.4% of 82Policy criticism, 2026-04: 14.8% of 27Policy criticism, 2026-05: 34.0% of 50Policy criticism, 2026-06: 21.6% of 74Policy criticism, 2026-07: 14.0% of 43Policy criticism, 2026-08: 23.8% of 42Policy criticism, 2026-09: 20.0% of 55Policy criticism, 2026-10: 22.6% of 31Policy discussionpeak 90.3% · Aug ’25 · latest 67.7%Policy discussion, 2025-01: 70.7% of 58Policy discussion, 2025-02: 66.7% of 42Policy discussion, 2025-03: 69.2% of 39Policy discussion, 2025-04: 85.7% of 28Policy discussion, 2025-05: 80.0% of 20Policy discussion, 2025-06: 85.3% of 34Policy discussion, 2025-07: 76.7% of 30Policy discussion, 2025-08: 90.3% of 31Policy discussion, 2025-09: 73.2% of 41Policy discussion, 2025-10: 88.0% of 25Policy discussion, 2025-11: 73.7% of 38Policy discussion, 2025-12: 75.7% of 37Policy discussion, 2026-01: 83.7% of 49Policy discussion, 2026-02: 74.5% of 47Policy discussion, 2026-03: 72.0% of 82Policy discussion, 2026-04: 77.8% of 27Policy discussion, 2026-05: 60.0% of 50Policy discussion, 2026-06: 51.3% of 74Policy discussion, 2026-07: 72.1% of 43Policy discussion, 2026-08: 73.8% of 42Policy discussion, 2026-09: 80.0% of 55Policy discussion, 2026-10: 67.7% of 31Bipartisanshippeak 12.8% · Mar ’25 · latest 6.5%Bipartisanship, 2025-01: 6.9% of 58Bipartisanship, 2025-02: 7.1% of 42Bipartisanship, 2025-03: 12.8% of 39Bipartisanship, 2025-04: 10.7% of 28Bipartisanship, 2025-05: 5.0% of 20Bipartisanship, 2025-06: 11.8% of 34Bipartisanship, 2025-07: 6.7% of 30Bipartisanship, 2025-08: 9.7% of 31Bipartisanship, 2025-09: 7.3% of 41Bipartisanship, 2025-10: 4.0% of 25Bipartisanship, 2025-11: 7.9% of 38Bipartisanship, 2025-12: 10.8% of 37Bipartisanship, 2026-01: 6.1% of 49Bipartisanship, 2026-02: 2.1% of 47Bipartisanship, 2026-03: 8.5% of 82Bipartisanship, 2026-04: 3.7% of 27Bipartisanship, 2026-05: 4.0% of 50Bipartisanship, 2026-06: 4.0% of 74Bipartisanship, 2026-07: 2.3% of 43Bipartisanship, 2026-08: 2.4% of 42Bipartisanship, 2026-09: 1.8% of 55Bipartisanship, 2026-10: 6.5% of 31Credit claimingpeak 66.7% · Jul ’25 · latest 32.3%Credit claiming, 2025-01: 56.9% of 58Credit claiming, 2025-02: 59.5% of 42Credit claiming, 2025-03: 20.5% of 39Credit claiming, 2025-04: 53.6% of 28Credit claiming, 2025-05: 65.0% of 20Credit claiming, 2025-06: 38.2% of 34Credit claiming, 2025-07: 66.7% of 30Credit claiming, 2025-08: 54.8% of 31Credit claiming, 2025-09: 56.1% of 41Credit claiming, 2025-10: 64.0% of 25Credit claiming, 2025-11: 44.7% of 38Credit claiming, 2025-12: 62.2% of 37Credit claiming, 2026-01: 38.8% of 49Credit claiming, 2026-02: 53.2% of 47Credit claiming, 2026-03: 51.2% of 82Credit claiming, 2026-04: 51.8% of 27Credit claiming, 2026-05: 28.0% of 50Credit claiming, 2026-06: 41.9% of 74Credit claiming, 2026-07: 51.2% of 43Credit claiming, 2026-08: 40.5% of 42Credit claiming, 2026-09: 41.8% of 55Credit claiming, 2026-10: 32.3% of 31Extreme labelspeak 24.0% · Oct ’25 · latest 3.2%Extreme labels, 2025-01: 8.6% of 58Extreme labels, 2025-02: 11.9% of 42Extreme labels, 2025-03: 10.3% of 39Extreme labels, 2025-04: 7.1% of 28Extreme labels, 2025-05: 15.0% of 20Extreme labels, 2025-06: 14.7% of 34Extreme labels, 2025-07: 10.0% of 30Extreme labels, 2025-08: 6.5% of 31Extreme labels, 2025-09: 9.8% of 41Extreme labels, 2025-10: 24.0% of 25Extreme labels, 2025-11: 15.8% of 38Extreme labels, 2025-12: 5.4% of 37Extreme labels, 2026-01: 0.0% of 49Extreme labels, 2026-02: 2.1% of 47Extreme labels, 2026-03: 3.7% of 82Extreme labels, 2026-04: 14.8% of 27Extreme labels, 2026-05: 8.0% of 50Extreme labels, 2026-06: 20.3% of 74Extreme labels, 2026-07: 9.3% of 43Extreme labels, 2026-08: 2.4% of 42Extreme labels, 2026-09: 9.1% of 55Extreme labels, 2026-10: 3.2% of 31Jan ’25Jul ’25Jan ’26Jul ’26Oct ’26
Show the data
Monthly rates for Hageman, each row shaded against its own peak, with statement volume. Months with fewer than 10 statements are left blank.
ColumnStatementsPersonal attacksPolicy criticismPolicy discussionBipartisanshipCredit claimingExtreme labels
Jan ’25583.5%39.7%70.7%6.9%56.9%8.6%
Feb ’25420.0%35.7%66.7%7.1%59.5%11.9%
Mar ’25390.0%43.6%69.2%12.8%20.5%10.3%
Apr ’25283.6%50.0%85.7%10.7%53.6%7.1%
May ’25200.0%50.0%80.0%5.0%65.0%15.0%
Jun ’25340.0%38.2%85.3%11.8%38.2%14.7%
Jul ’25303.3%16.7%76.7%6.7%66.7%10.0%
Aug ’25310.0%41.9%90.3%9.7%54.8%6.5%
Sep ’25410.0%34.2%73.2%7.3%56.1%9.8%
Oct ’25254.0%44.0%88.0%4.0%64.0%24.0%
Nov ’25382.6%39.5%73.7%7.9%44.7%15.8%
Dec ’25370.0%24.3%75.7%10.8%62.2%5.4%
Jan ’26490.0%12.2%83.7%6.1%38.8%0.0%
Feb ’26470.0%31.9%74.5%2.1%53.2%2.1%
Mar ’26821.2%24.4%72.0%8.5%51.2%3.7%
Apr ’26270.0%14.8%77.8%3.7%51.8%14.8%
May ’26500.0%34.0%60.0%4.0%28.0%8.0%
Jun ’26740.0%21.6%51.3%4.0%41.9%20.3%
Jul ’264311.6%14.0%72.1%2.3%51.2%9.3%
Aug ’26422.4%23.8%73.8%2.4%40.5%2.4%
Sep ’26550.0%20.0%80.0%1.8%41.8%9.1%
Oct ’26310.0%22.6%67.7%6.5%32.3%3.2%
How to read the strips

Each row is one kind of statement; each cell is a month, shaded against that row’s own peak (darker = closer to the peak), with the peak and the latest value written at the right. The top row counts statements. The strip covers every month of the 119th Congress, the same span as the rates above, including months with no statements. A month with fewer than 10 statements is hatched, not shaded: one or two posts would swing its rate to 0% or 100%.

In Hageman’s words

Real statements from the classifier’s example set, with the labels it assigned

Personal attacks

The Wyoming Round-Up — August 2, 2026 [Rep. Harriet Hageman newsletter banner image] Contact Us<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/WczUCG-CflTdSfCGX5_S_A~~/AAS2yhA~/w_BuYjcMpiDmclB0G1dglCZFN2KEzANKIiVCMNazgEKgXCOUDyoGcqqOO8pAdcG2CTXURIpiBpuY-Y7lYotCDFO3Qjn2SCky2Iljrx3lCcCpPlcqeUoHfrG4YvxiCzyDm-Ww9QQ…

Aug 2, 2026 · Newsletters · personal attacks; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Health; Transportation and Public Works; Crime and Law Enforcement; Energy; Public Lands and Natural Resources; Armed Forces and National Security; Science, Technology, Communications; Education; Government Operations and Politics; target: Anthony Fauci

Policy criticism

The Wyoming Round-Up — October 25, 2026 [Rep. Harriet Hageman newsletter banner image] Contact Us<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/T_aNwB9EMsFVadi0Sx86Kg~~/AAS2yhA~/N_YShrm1a-a9jLthdlaBPS7hZgzDnxAOPkrrVdfhf0lCHghNzNx4QHVLXADqtj2L8MZyAq8rl3KFqpo567Mv5I3uty8PMprche4CpFzuW9rvM03es18a-4kDvYz8OnHxWiOgt…

Oct 25, 2026 · Newsletters · policy criticism; policy discussion; bipartisanship; credit claiming; Health; Government Operations and Politics; Energy; Foreign Trade and International Finance; Agriculture and Food; Taxation; Public Lands and Natural Resources; International Affairs; Commerce; Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues; Armed Forces and National Security; Environmental Protection; Economics and Public Finance; Education; Transportation and Public Works; Immigration; Law; Families

Extreme label

The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

Oct 16, 2026 · Posts on X · policy discussion; Crime and Law Enforcement; extreme label “MAGA” aimed at MAGA · Source

Examples by category

Up to five recent statements in each category

Category

Overtly questions a named person’s character, integrity or loyalty, or calls them names. Criticising a record or a policy does not count.

  1. Newsletters

    The Wyoming Round-Up — August 2, 2026 [Rep. Harriet Hageman newsletter banner image] Contact Us<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/WczUCG-CflTdSfCGX5_S_A~~/AAS2yhA~/w_BuYjcMpiDmclB0G1dglCZFN2KEzANKIiVCMNazgEKgXCOUDyoGcqqOO8pAdcG2CTXURIpiBpuY-Y7lYotCDFO3Qjn2SCky2Iljrx3lCcCpPlcqeUoHfrG4YvxiCzyDm-Ww9QQATwOSHy5GoKpHs7a2PX4YEFW_i7a84rgADvUPD_ysTlef1bc3rW9duyl8> Subscribe<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/8G4t3U2zrN_QJz0A1…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · bipartisanship · credit claiming · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Health · Transportation and Public Works · Crime and Law Enforcement · Energy · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Armed Forces and National Security · Science, Technology, Communications · Education · Government Operations and Politics · target: Anthony Fauci

  2. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · target: FauciSource

  3. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · target: FauciSource

  4. Posts on X

    The text of this post is on X; follow the source link to read it.

    personal attacks · policy discussion · Armed Forces and National Security · target: Joe BidenSource

  5. Newsletters

    The Wyoming Round-Up — July 19, 2026 [Rep. Harriet Hageman newsletter banner image] Contact Us<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/fj3lfshaUi8L6FA1ADfp7w~~/AAS2yhA~/JjhTr7MxDcr1uOq3z8SgdrDZBXkyyVTqVqMw-cQIdH7RH2MelGROA6yt1zqEQ-B8D98dNHw01Tk7QnPvysPNlF2llPQlzd3-U9l-A8RinqUw_gSSR1MKItoT2TO7AvKyH_kdMo7fqOqMg_0knkKsaH6cNjM4_fkl3c1mSqxf844Us40CmfPi2TP7_NbNx5Iy> Subscribe<https://go.sparkpostmail.com/f/a/Ie8bzePLBzdrYi9myq…

    personal attacks · policy discussion · credit claiming · Health · Government Operations and Politics · Energy · Public Lands and Natural Resources · Commerce · International Affairs · Science, Technology, Communications · Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues · Armed Forces and National Security · Environmental Protection · Economics and Public Finance · Crime and Law Enforcement · Education · Law · Immigration · Transportation and Public Works · extreme label “extreme, radical” aimed at climate policies · target: Jack Smith

All 923 statements

Newest first, the 119th Congress

The full feed

Five statements at a time, newest first; filters apply to the statements loaded so far. Export saves the statements that match. Sources: 708 posts on X, 123 newsletters, 66 Congressional Record speeches, 26 press releases.

Back to topNext: Policy

Policy

Government Operations and Politics is what Hageman talks about most: 29% of policy statements, above the peer share. Talk and legislation agree at 0.75 on a 0–1 scale (House Republicans average 0.64; 5th of 221).

Each policy statement is tagged by the AI model with one or more of 25 policy areas from the Congressional Research Service list, so the shares say what Hageman talks about. The bills Hageman sponsors and cosponsors carry the same areas, so the two can be compared.

What Hageman talks about

Share of policy statements by area, the 119th Congress

0%35%
Hageman
Peers
Government Operations and Politics196 statements
29%
19%
Energy186 statements
28%
9%
Public Lands and Natural Resources161 statements
24%
4%
Environmental Protection150 statements
22%
4%
Transportation and Public Works141 statements
21%
7%
Show the data
Policy areas Hageman talks about, as a share of policy statements, against the House Republicans average.
RowHagemanPeers
Government Operations and Politics29%19%
Energy28%9%
Public Lands and Natural Resources24%4%
Environmental Protection22%4%
Transportation and Public Works21%7%
How to read the bars

The thick bar is the share of Hageman’s policy statements in an area; the thin grey bar is the average share for House Republicans. A statement counts once in each of its areas, so shares can add to more than 100%. The five largest areas are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Talks about · legislates on

Left: share of statements by policy area. Right: share of bills. Areas in order of their share of statements; both sides run from 0 to 35%. Grey ticks are the House Republicans averages.

Talks aboutLegislates onGovernment Operations andPoliticsGovernment Operations and Politics, talks about: 29% (House Republicans 19%)29%Government Operations and Politics, legislates on: 15% (House Republicans 12%)15%EnergyEnergy, talks about: 28% (House Republicans 9%)28%Energy, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 3%)8%Public Lands and NaturalResourcesPublic Lands and Natural Resources, talks about: 24% (House Republicans 4%)24%Public Lands and Natural Resources, legislates on: 12% (House Republicans 3%)12%Environmental ProtectionEnvironmental Protection, talks about: 22% (House Republicans 4%)22%Environmental Protection, legislates on: 4% (House Republicans 3%)4%Transportation and PublicWorksTransportation and Public Works, talks about: 21% (House Republicans 7%)21%Transportation and Public Works, legislates on: 8% (House Republicans 4%)8%
Show the data
Hageman's share of statements against share of bills in each policy area.
AreaTalks aboutHouse Republicans, talks aboutLegislates onHouse Republicans, legislates on
Government Operations and Politics29%19%15%12%
Energy28%9%8%3%
Public Lands and Natural Resources24%4%12%3%
Environmental Protection22%4%4%3%
Transportation and Public Works21%7%8%4%
0.75

talk-to-bills agreement, 0 to 1

House Republicans average 0.64. Ranks 5th of 221.

What agreement means, and what it doesn’t

Agreement is 1 minus the distance between the two distributions (Jensen–Shannon): 1 means Hageman legislates on exactly the areas Hageman talks about, in the same proportions; 0 means no overlap. It does not say whether the bills match the positions in the statements, only the subjects. Bills Hageman sponsored count fully, cosponsored bills a quarter. Shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.

Back to topNext: Ideology

Ideology

Hageman sits at +1.38 on the CSIP scale, right of 0, more conservative than 91% of House Republicans. Approximate range +1.36 to +1.40, which understates the uncertainty; from 5,089 donors and 1,883 roll calls.

CSIP, the lab’s Common-Space Ideal Point, places every official, federal and state, on one left–right scale, estimated from roll-call votes, who gives money to whom, and the text of statements. Negative is left of 0, positive right of it; 0 is the centre of the scale, not a definition of “moderate”.

+1.38

CSIP ideal point

Approximate range +1.36 to +1.40. From 5,089 donors and 1,883 roll calls. Run 2026-10-25T215945. Blue is left of 0, red right of 0.

← More liberalMore conservative →0Hageman +1.4House Republicans +1.0All House +0.3

The outlined dot is Hageman, coloured by its side of 0 (blue left, red right, deeper further out); the bar through it is the approximate range (±1.96 standard errors), which understates the uncertainty; the grey ticks below are the medians of Hageman’s groups. 0 is the centre of the scale, not “moderate” by definition.

What this means, and what it doesn’t

The score summarises how an official votes, who funds them and how they talk, relative to everyone else. It does not grade positions as good or bad, and two officials with the same score can differ on any single issue. The ± range is 1.96 standard errors, which understates the uncertainty: scores whose ranges overlap may not differ at all, and even scores whose ranges do not overlap may not differ.

Where Hageman sits

Every official in each group, on the CSIP scale

−2.0−1.00.0+1.0+2.0← More liberalMore conservative →House Republicansmedian +1.0Hageman +1.4All Housemedian +0.3
Show the data
Hageman's CSIP score of +1.38 placed against House Republicans, All House.
GroupOfficialsMedianShare left of Hageman
House Republicans221+1.090%
All House439+0.395%
How to read the strips

Every small dot is one official on the same scale, coloured by its own score (blue left of 0, red right of 0, grey at 0, deeper further out) and spread up and down only to keep dots apart; where a group is crowded the dots overlap, and darker patches mean more officials. The large outlined dot is Hageman in every row; the rule is each group’s median. The table under the figure gives the share of each group to the left of Hageman.

Back to topNext: Money

Money

Hageman raised $2.8M in the 2026 cycle, above the House Republicans’ median of $2.2M. 42% of individual money came in gifts of $200 or less. 8.0% of itemized individual money came from Wyoming.

Campaign money from Federal Election Commission filings, as aggregates only; the lab never shows an individual donor. Campaigns must report by name every person who gives them more than $200 in a cycle (“itemized”); smaller gifts are reported only as one total (“unitemized”), so donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations describe itemized donors only.

Election cycle
$2.8M

raised in the 2026 cycle

From 1,000 itemized donors. House Republicans’ median $2.2M.

Where the money came from

Each square is one percent of 2026-cycle receipts, from FEC summary totals.

Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Itemized individual (over $200): $847.6K (30.2%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less): $626.2K (22.3%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)PACs and other committees: $659.4K (23.5%)Party committees: $62.0K (2.2%)Party committees: $62.0K (2.2%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds): $615.5K (21.9%)
  • Itemized individual (over $200)30 squares$847.6K
  • Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)22 squares$626.2K
  • PACs and other committees24 squares$659.4K
  • Party committees2 squares$62.0K
  • Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)22 squares$615.5K
Show the data
Sources of Hageman's money, 2026 cycle, one square per percent
SourceAmountShare
Itemized individual (over $200)$847.6K30.2%
Unitemized individual (gifts of $200 or less)$626.2K22.3%
PACs and other committees$659.4K23.5%
Party committees$62.0K2.2%
Remainder not broken out in the FEC summary (transfers, loans, refunds)$615.5K21.9%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

Totals say how much a campaign took in, not how it was spent, and they rise sharply when a seat is up for election; compare cycles with that in mind. The small-donor share understates small giving when a campaign itemizes gifts made through ActBlue or WinRed.

Receipts by cycle

Total receipts, 2022 to 2026. The grey line is the House Republicans’ median for 2026.

2022 cycle: $5.7M$5.7M20222024 cycle: $3.1M$3.1M20242026 cycle: $2.8M$2.8M2026House Republicans median $2.2M
Show the data
Hageman's receipts by cycle against the 2026 House Republicans median.
ItemValue
2022 cycle$5.7M
2024 cycle$3.1M
2026 cycle$2.8M

Top donor states, 2026

Itemized contributions by donor state. 8.0% came from Wyoming.

  1. Texas$169.1K
  2. California$97.7K
  3. Florida$71.3K
  4. Wyoming$60.7K
  5. Virginia$52.5K

Small donations

Gifts of $200 or less as a share of individual money, by cycle. The thin grey bar is the 2026 House Republicans’ median.

0%60%
Hageman
Median
2026
42%
9%
2024
54%
9%
2022
46%
9%
Show the data
Small-donor share by cycle against the House Republicans median
RowHagemanMedian
2026 cycle42%9%
2024 cycle54%9%
2022 cycle46%9%

Where itemized donors live

Individuals who gave more than $200, by donor state

Alaska: $1,729AKMaine: $241MEVermont: no dataVTNew Hampshire: $4,460NHWashington: $5,401WAIdaho: $440IDMontana: $3,196MTNorth Dakota: $325NDMinnesota: $6,359MNIllinois: $19.0KILWisconsin: $4,313WIMichigan: $8,258MINew York: $20.7KNYRhode Island: no dataRIMassachusetts: $14.1KMAOregon: $3,285ORNevada: $16.1KNVWyoming: $60.7KWYSouth Dakota: $500SDIowa: $5,515IAIndiana: $7,349INOhio: $9,156OHPennsylvania: $5,651PANew Jersey: $8,313NJConnecticut: $3,495CTCalifornia: $97.7KCAUtah: $3,408UTColorado: $14.5KCONebraska: $209NEMissouri: $6,862MOKentucky: $7,918KYWest Virginia: $1,463WVVirginia: $52.5KVAMaryland: $2,683MDDelaware: $1,200DEArizona: $19.5KAZNew Mexico: $1,704NMKansas: $1,937KSArkansas: $2,279ARTennessee: $5,755TNNorth Carolina: $6,126NCSouth Carolina: $14.3KSCDistrict of Columbia: $20.6KDCOklahoma: $5,459OKLouisiana: $7,599LAMississippi: $1,885MSAlabama: $3,342ALGeorgia: $15.8KGAHawaii: $486HITexas: $169.1KTXFlorida: $71.3KFL
Show the data
Hageman's itemized individual contributions by donor state, 2026 cycle
StateValue
Texas$169.1K
California$97.7K
Florida$71.3K
Wyoming$60.7K
Virginia$52.5K
New York$20.7K
District of Columbia$20.6K
Arizona$19.5K
Illinois$19.0K
Nevada$16.1K
Georgia$15.8K
Colorado$14.5K
South Carolina$14.3K
Massachusetts$14.1K
Ohio$9,156
New Jersey$8,313
Michigan$8,258
Kentucky$7,918
Louisiana$7,599
Indiana$7,349
Missouri$6,862
Minnesota$6,359
North Carolina$6,126
Tennessee$5,755
Pennsylvania$5,651
Iowa$5,515
Oklahoma$5,459
Washington$5,401
New Hampshire$4,460
Wisconsin$4,313
Connecticut$3,495
Utah$3,408
Alabama$3,342
Oregon$3,285
Montana$3,196
Maryland$2,683
Arkansas$2,279
Kansas$1,937
Mississippi$1,885
Alaska$1,729
New Mexico$1,704
West Virginia$1,463
Delaware$1,200
South Dakota$500
Hawaii$486
Idaho$440
North Dakota$325
Maine$241
Nebraska$209
VermontNo data
Rhode IslandNo data
1,000

itemized donors

People who gave more than $200

8.0%

from Wyoming

Of itemized individual dollars

How to read the map

Every state the same size. Darker states gave more itemized money; hatched states had no itemized donors; the outlined state is Wyoming. Gifts of $200 or less carry no address and are left out.

Donors’ ideology

Distribution of itemized donors’ own CSIP scores

CSIP −0.50 to −0.25: 0.0%CSIP −0.25 to 0.00: 0.3%CSIP 0.00 to +0.25: 0.3%CSIP +0.25 to +0.50: 3.0%CSIP +0.50 to +0.75: 7.9%CSIP +0.75 to +1.00: 24%CSIP +1.00 to +1.25: 43%43%CSIP +1.25 to +1.50: 21%CSIP +1.50 to +1.75: 0.0%← More liberalMore conservative →0
Show the data
Ideology of Hageman's itemized donors in 2026, from −0.50 to +1.75: 7.9% between +0.50 and +0.75, 24% between +0.75 and +1.00, 43% between +1.00 and +1.25, 21% between +1.25 and +1.50.
ItemValue
CSIP −0.50 to −0.250.0%
CSIP −0.25 to 0.000.3%
CSIP 0.00 to +0.250.3%
CSIP +0.25 to +0.503.0%
CSIP +0.50 to +0.757.9%
CSIP +0.75 to +1.0024%
CSIP +1.00 to +1.2543%
CSIP +1.25 to +1.5021%
CSIP +1.50 to +1.750.0%
How to read the columns

Donors who give to many candidates get their own CSIP score. Each column is the share of Hageman’s itemized money from donors in that part of the scale, blue left of 0 and red right of 0, deeper further out; Hageman’s own score is +1.38.

Top donor occupations

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. RETIRED$318.2K 740 donors
  2. ENTREPRENEUR$45.5K 7 donors
  3. CEO$33.1K 10 donors
  4. CONSULTANT$19.7K 5 donors
  5. PRESIDENT$19.6K 8 donors

Top committees

PAC and committee contributions, 2026 cycle.

  1. NRSC$62.0K
  2. PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PEABODY PAC)$16.0K
  3. ALABAMA FIRST PAC$10.0K
  4. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE$10.0K
  5. ARKANSAS FOR LEADERSHIP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARKPAC)$10.0K

Top employers

Itemized, 2026 cycle.

  1. ENTREPRENEUR$45.5K 7 donors
  2. DISABLED$282 3 donors

Aggregates only. Individual donors are never named.

Back to topNext: Votes

Votes

Hageman voted with the majority of House Republicans on 98.3% of party-line votes and missed 0.3% of 674 roll calls. House Republicans on average: 97.1% party unity, 96.3% attendance. Across all roll calls, Hageman voted against the majority of House Republicans 48 times.

674 roll calls Hageman could vote on in the 119th Congress, compared with House Republicans. Attendance is the share with a vote recorded. Party unity counts only party-line roll calls, where most Democrats and most Republicans voted on opposite sides, and is the share of those where Hageman voted with the majority of House Republicans. The count of votes against that majority covers every roll call where the majority took a side.

48

votes against the majority of House Republicans

Party unity 98.3%, House Republicans average 97.1%, ranks 107th of 221. 674 roll calls in the 119th Congress.

Attendance and party unity

The thick bar is Hageman, the thin grey bar the House Republicans average. The scale runs from 80% to 100% to show the gap.

80%100%
Hageman
Peers
Rank
Attendance
99.7%
96.3%
21st of 221
Party unity
98.3%
97.1%
107th of 221
Show the data
Hageman's attendance and party unity against House Republicans.
RowHagemanPeers
Attendance99.7%96.3%
Party unity98.3%97.1%
What this means, and what it doesn’t

A missed roll call has many causes, from illness to campaigning, so attendance says how often, not why. A vote against the majority can be on procedure as well as substance, and many fall on roll calls where both parties split; the key votes below show the ones that decided something.

Key votes

25 roll calls the lab flagged as key in the 119th Congress

Key votes
Party split (yea–nay)Why it’s key
Sep 16, 2026
S. 2403
Retire through Ownership Act
On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
YeaWith majorityPassedD 209–0 · R 191–14 · I 1–0Democrats 209 yea, 0 nay; Republicans 191 yea, 14 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law
Sep 16, 2026
H.J.Res. 213
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the “California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision”
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 3–207 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 3 yea, 207 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 10326
PROOF Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 6–206 · R 210–1 · I 1–0Democrats 6 yea, 206 nay; Republicans 210 yea, 1 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayclose vote
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 9576
National Fraud Enforcement Division Act
On Passage
YeaWith majorityPassedD 139–72 · R 212–0 · I 1–0Democrats 139 yea, 72 nay; Republicans 212 yea, 0 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 nayparty crossover
Sep 16, 2026
H.R. 5334
An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes
On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments
YeaWith majorityPassedD 58–152 · R 203–7 · I 1–0Democrats 58 yea, 152 nay; Republicans 203 yea, 7 nay; Independents 1 yea, 0 naybecame law · party crossover
How key votes are chosen

Automatically: a final-passage or override vote where the measure became law, the margin was under 10%, at least 10% of either party voted against its majority, or the bill was among the 25 most mentioned in officials’ own statements. Up to 25 per window, most recent first; five are shown. Bars show yea on the left, nay on the right, per party.

Votes most often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hageman most often

  1. Troy NehlsR623 shared votes96%
  2. Mike JohnsonR520 shared votes96%
  3. Ben ClineR665 shared votes96%
  4. Mike Collins Jr.R658 shared votes96%
  5. Mark E. GreenR172 shared votes96%

Votes least often with

The colleagues who voted the same way as Hageman least often

  1. Frederica WilsonD479 shared votes20%
  2. Jan SchakowskyD627 shared votes21%
  3. Rashida TlaibD656 shared votes21%
  4. Delia RamirezD639 shared votes21%
  5. Brittany PettersenD568 shared votes22%
How to read the agreement lists

The share of roll calls both members voted on where they voted the same way, among colleagues sharing at least 50 such votes. High agreement with members of the other party is common on routine votes.

Full voting record

119th Congress (2025–27), loads in batches

Back to topNext: Legislation

Legislation

Hageman sponsored 59 bills in the 119th Congress; 1 became law. Cosponsored 246 others. 12% of sponsored bills got out of committee (House Republicans average 17%; 118th of 216).

The bills Hageman sponsored and cosponsored in the 119th Congress, from the official bill records, and how far each got: introduced, referred to or acted on in committee, passed one chamber, passed both, became law. A bill counts at every stage it has reached, so the blocks only shrink to the right.

Bills by stage

Counts for the 119th Congress

Sponsored59 billsSponsored, Introduced: 5959Sponsored, In committee: 5959Sponsored, Passed one chamber: 44Sponsored, Passed both chambers: 11Sponsored, Became law: 11Cosponsored246 billsCosponsored, Introduced: 246246Cosponsored, In committee: 246246Cosponsored, Passed one chamber: 2525Cosponsored, Passed both chambers: 33Cosponsored, Became law: 33IntroducedIncommitteePassed onechamberPassed bothchambersBecamelaw
Show the data
Bills Hageman sponsored and cosponsored, by furthest stage reached
RoleIntroducedIn committeePassed one chamberPassed both chambersBecame law
Sponsored5959411
Cosponsored2462462533
How to read the blocks

Ink blocks are bills Hageman sponsored, ochre blocks bills Hageman cosponsored; the figure above each block is the count. Most bills in any legislature never leave committee, so a short staircase is the norm.

12%

of sponsored bills got out of committee

House Republicans average 17%. Ranks 118th of 216.

Cosponsorship partners

Colleagues who most often cosponsor with Hageman, by number of shared bills in the 119th Congress; the square shows their party.

  1. Mary Miller39
  2. Barry Moore38
  3. Paul Gosar34
  4. Josh Brecheen26
  5. Andy Biggs26
What this means, and what it doesn’t

The score is the share of sponsored bills that a committee reported out or a chamber passed, with at least 5 sponsored bills, ranked within the peer group. Members of the majority party and committee chairs move more bills, so the rank reflects position in the chamber as well as effort. Cosponsorship partners are the five colleagues who share the most of Hageman’s bills; the toggle shows more.

Bill list

Sponsored and cosponsored, with status and policy area; five are shown, the toggle shows the rest

Bills sponsored and cosponsored
H.R. 10669LANDs ActCosponsorOct 1, 2026In committeePublic Lands and Natural ResourcesReferred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10673Battery Safety Placarding ActSponsorOct 1, 2026In committeeTransportation and Public WorksReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Oct 1, 2026
H.R. 10558CLEAR ActSponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeLawReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1584Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment and its enduring legacy of saving the lives of more than 2,600,000 unborn children and respecting the conscience rights of the American people.CosponsorSep 24, 2026In committeeCivil Rights and Liberties, Minority IssuesReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Sep 24, 2026
H.Res. 1535Supporting the designation of the week of September 13 through September 19, 2026, as "National Truck Driver Appreciation Week".SponsorSep 14, 2026In committeeTransportation and Public WorksReferred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Sep 14, 2026

Back to topNext: Online

Online

A site that has not changed in 90 days. Hageman’s official site had 29 pages when last crawled on Jul 5, 2026. The lab last catalogued the images Hageman posted on Oct 26, 2026.

The lab crawls Hageman’s official and campaign websites (weekly for Congress, monthly for the states) and keeps every page’s text, so changes can be read later; it also records social accounts and describes the images Hageman posts with a vision model.

Websites

How to read the counts

“Pages crawled” is the size of the site at the last crawl; “changes in 90 days” counts pages whose text differed from the previous crawl. Sites change for many routine reasons, such as new press releases, so a high count is not by itself notable.

Images Hageman posted

The latest 24, with model-written descriptions

  • A group of six adults pose for a photo on the field at a football stadium at night. Players, spectators, stadium lights, and a large scoreboard are visible behind them. Clothing and signs include text.
    A group of six adults pose for a photo on the field at a football stadium at night. Players, spectators, stadium lights, and a large scoreboard are visible behind them. Clothing and signs include text.View post
  • A woman stands beside a railing at a football stadium at dusk. Behind her are the field, goalposts, spectators, stadium seating, trees, and a large illuminated scoreboard displaying promotional text.
    A woman stands beside a railing at a football stadium at dusk. Behind her are the field, goalposts, spectators, stadium seating, trees, and a large illuminated scoreboard displaying promotional text.View post
  • A woman poses with a large cowboy mascot at night on a football field, with stadium lights, players, and spectators in the background. There is some text visible on signs and clothing.
    A woman poses with a large cowboy mascot at night on a football field, with stadium lights, players, and spectators in the background. There is some text visible on signs and clothing.View post
  • A woman speaks at a podium to a small seated audience in an ornate meeting room. There is text on the front of the podium.
    A woman speaks at a podium to a small seated audience in an ornate meeting room. There is text on the front of the podium.View post
  • A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a wood-paneled meeting room. Chairs are arranged in rows on a patterned carpet, with framed pictures and wall lights behind the speaker. There is text on the podium.
    A woman speaks at a podium to a seated audience in a wood-paneled meeting room. Chairs are arranged in rows on a patterned carpet, with framed pictures and wall lights behind the speaker. There is text on the podium.View post
About the descriptions

Written by a vision model and may be wrong. Open the post to see the original. Five are shown; the toggle shows the rest.

Back to topNext: Methods and sources

Methods and sources

How this page was made. Profile built Oct 28, 2026; site last built Oct 28, 2026. Every number on the page is computed from the sources listed here, by the same rules for every official; nothing is written by hand.

The headline

The headline is the measure on which Hageman is most unusual among House Republicans, chosen by one rule for every official of every party. The candidates are the rate of each kind of statement and of extreme labels, party unity, attendance, the small-donor share, the in-state share and total receipts of the latest cycle, the share of sponsored bills that got out of committee, talk-to-bills agreement, and the CSIP score’s place within the party group.

The builder ranks every measure within the same peer group the page compares it with, and writes each official’s percentile: the share of the group below the value, ties counting half, so 0.5 is the median and a value shared by many never ranks first. A measure’s score is how far that percentile sits from the median (0 in the middle, 0.5 at either end), and the highest score leads if it is above 0.25, outside the middle half of the group. Scores within 0.03 of each other are a tie, broken in this order: votes against the party majority, kinds of statement, ideology, roll calls missed, small donations, in-state money, legislation, agreement, extreme labels, receipts.

A measure counts only with at least 200 statements, 100 roll calls or 5 sponsored bills behind it and a peer group of at least 10. Two things never lead: high party unity or attendance, where most members sit, and a high rate of a kind of statement backed by fewer than 10 statements. When nothing qualifies, the headline is a neutral fact instead: statements classified, or years in office. The wording always names the direction (“in the bottom 5% of …”, “votes against the majority of …”).

Identifiers

Profile id
H001096
Bioguide
H001096
FEC candidate ids
H2WY00166, S6WY00209

Bulk files with the same data for every official:

Freshness of this profile’s data

  • What politicians sayOct 27, 20261 days agoMembers of Congress: tweets since 2017; press releases, newsletters and floor speeches since 2022. State legislators: tweets since May 2024. Governors: tweets since January 2025. Labels from an LLM classifier.
  • Roll calls (Congress)Sep 30, 202628 days agoVoteview roll calls, 113th Congress (2013) on.
  • Bills (Congress)Oct 22, 20266 days agoGovInfo BILLSTATUS: sponsors, cosponsors, actions, CRS policy area.
  • Campaign money (FEC)Oct 22, 20266 days agoFEC committee financial summaries (totals, small donations) and itemized contributions (donor counts, states, employers), cycles 2020-2026; aggregates only.
  • Ideology (CSIP)Oct 25, 20263 days agoCommon-Space Ideal Points (CSIP), current validated run.
  • WebsitesOct 25, 20263 days agoWeekly crawls of federal sites since April 2026; monthly state crawls since June 2026.
  • ImagesOct 28, 2026todayImages in members' tweets with vision-model descriptions.

How the measures work

What politicians say
Every post, press release, newsletter and congressional floor speech is read by a language model and marked for personal attacks, policy criticism, policy discussion, bipartisanship and credit claiming. A statement can be in several. Rates are shares of statements in the window. The methods paper.
Extreme labels
A statement has an extreme label when it calls a politician, party or policy “far left”, “far right”, “MAGA”, “extreme”, “radical”, “woke”, “fascist” or “communist”. The target is who the label is aimed at.
Policy areas and agreement
Statements and bills share 25 Congressional Research Service policy areas (state bills are assigned by a language model). Agreement is 1 − Jensen–Shannon distance between the two distributions, shown with at least 20 policy statements and 5 bills.
Ideology (CSIP)
Common-Space Ideal Points place federal and state officials on one left–right scale, estimated jointly from roll calls, campaign contributions and the text of statements, with standard errors. Only a validated run is shown. The methods paper.
Campaign money
Campaigns report by name only donors who give more than $200 in a cycle; smaller gifts are reported as one total. Federal totals and the small-donor share come from the FEC’s financial summaries of each campaign committee. Donor counts, donor states, employers and occupations cover itemized donors only. State filings report no small-gift totals, so state figures are itemized only. The lab never publishes donor names.
Votes and key votes
Attendance, party unity and the count of votes against the majority of an official’s own party come from roll calls (Voteview for Congress, chamber records for the states). Key votes are final-passage or override votes that became law, were decided by under 10%, saw at least 10% of a party vote against its majority, or concerned one of the 25 bills most mentioned in officials’ statements.
Peers and ranks
Comparisons are with the same party, chamber and level (for example House Democrats); state legislators are compared within their state and chamber for votes. Every comparison names its group. Rank 1 is the highest value in the group; tied values share the average of their ranks, and the percentile is the share of the group below the value, ties counting half.

America’s Political Pulse · Polarization Research Lab

Back to top